rohirwine
-
Posts
2.853 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rohirwine
-
-
I agree with you Klaas:
-
The problem with Sauron is that he could be referred to as a "fallen maiar", Tom was there before all had been there (before the creation of the lamps? surely before the coming of the sun and moon, in any case) So maybe he was one of the greatest maiar, descended into Arda (i read in the Silmarillion something that suggests not all maiars went there at first), or he wasn't touched by Melkor's malice....
...now that i think about it: Tom could be the personification of Tolkien itself (he was there before everything, he had set some limits(?) of action...), but maybe this is only rambling around....
-
The Russian suicidal nature was diminished by armor in artillery in the European Theatre, but it is entirely probably that the tanks would bog down once they hit the farmlands of Manchuria.
Probable? I don't agree. Russian WWII tanks designed starting from the T34 are widely recognized to be the most ground pressure favored of WWII (with the exception of some models of the KV1 and the late JS2, wich hardly saw any action in Manchuria). The same tactics used in the european theatre were applied in Manchuria, with the substantial differece that russian generals tended to be a bit overconfident after having smashed Germany. What made russians feel the pain was a bit of carelessness shown by commands in rushing the advance, hence taking less measures to keep the fundamental infantry-armour linking.
Also, Marshall Zhukov maintained a consistent high casualty rate even as his tactics evolved. He simply relied entirely on brute force, and the tenacity of the German defenders (which is upstaged very much so by the Japanese) could cause quite a bit of damage.Again, i feel this is a stereothype: even if i admit Zhukov cared not much of the life of his soldiers, this doesn't mean he didn't care at all. Attrition was part of the initial stage of a breakthrough, to gain wich no material nor man was spared. Moreover, it was not a matter of overrunning enemy position with waves of men, russian tactics were of this kind till the spring offensive of 1942 only (not by chance the last one entirely decided by Stalin himself).
Thre only reason why we continue believing that this was used till the end of the war is because most historians had to rely over german material till some years ago. German memories of the war (but most of all offcial army analysis and reports), simply refused to recognize to the enemy the fact that it grew in military skill and cunning, depicting the "bolshevik" as the same beastlike mugiks wich were so frequent in nazi propaganda of the time. Admitting they were overpowered not only by numbers , but also by skill, was something they could not afford to do (and probably they were not capable of). Frankly, i find difficult to see an unbiased source in the memories of german generals of the time.
In the end, the Russians lost nearly 25 million men in WWII. I agree that most of the casualties occured in the first two years (until Kursk, as a good marking place), but Russia still lost millions of soldiers after that.The figure is probably right (in the sense that noone has a exact figure), but you forget that civilian losses are exteemed to be around the half of that number, and that in the first year of the war (1941) almost 7 million men were captured (wich practically meant death sentence) or killed, wich leaves us with roughly the same number for the next 5 years. Now i must stop this, since i do not have the data with me, but i'm fairly sure the bunch of these casualties happened in 1942-1943, not in 44-45.
I'll check this in, any case, and i'll correct myself if needed...
-
Klaas:
This explains only why you are not part of a religion; not why you believe there is no god.
Well, i dare say that is the problem with religion: either you believe in God or you don't. It's a matter of faith. You have it or you don't. Maybe it's possible to explain why you gained it or lost it, but i suppose there is little rational in faith.
-
Titus: diplomatic talks about the end of hostilities were already being talked, the Japaneese government may have been as warthirsty as you want, but they simply realized that the war was lost, no matter what their own propaganda thundered in the ears of japanese people. What they wanted to be assured to them, was the survival of a facade of dignity (i.e. the survival of the emperor as a chief of state).
Talking about "suicidial" russian tactics is way off reality in 1945. At that point URSS generals had adopted the tactic of extreme firepower (artilliery) and massive armoured assaults. It's true that they did not bother with heavy casualties rates, but the situation was quite different than in 1940 (winter war) or 1941, when soldiers were pushed ahead by fear of NKVD bullets without even a gun to defend themselves. In Manchuria they simply underestimated Japaneese will to resist (partly, maybe, because of their brilliant victory in Kalchin-Gol in 1938). At wich point this partial setback strengthened Japaneese will to resist is still to be deeply debated, imho, while it's quite probable that the atomic bombs were rather unnecessary at that stage.
-
Lol I still don't understand it
Klaas: Jordan's saying he would not believe the fact and carry on believing in God, i suppose.
If it's so, i must concede you're very coherent, Jordan.
I must say i would have said the same thing as you if the question regarded proofs about the existence of god: i would carry on believing he/she/it doesn't exist... ...it's a matter of faith folks, it's difficult to talk about rational demonstrations or proofs...
-
FTL as first, a clean and renewable energy source as second...
-
Hmm, personally i'm atheist. But i do not believe in god not out of rational thinking (even if i have strong beliefs about the role religious hierarchies of every kind have in the anthropology and sociology of man), but simply because i do not have faith.
A christian believes not because he's convinced, but because he has faith. More or less, every religion needs this in the end (except taoism and, maybe buddism, but i'm unsure if buddism can be called properly a religion). I'm an atheist because i do not have this faith. I simply believe (have faith about the fact) that there is no God involved in the Universe, and that the only God(s) we have, were created by men of long time ago for different reasons: need to explain the inexplicable, need of confort and hope, social needs (almost every religion has a set of everyday-life rules), and even thirst of power (when you have a religious hierarchy wich is able to influence people's behaivour and thinking, this is the precise depiction of power within society... ...a good exaple of this you can find in Italy, as istance).
This is the main reason because i don't even start to argue abour rational reasons of being atheist or theist, i found them clueless for htis kind of topic (but i'm quite eager to change my mind if you convince me of this, of course...
), imho, it's more interesting to discuss what religion (or non-religion) means in our society... 
-
Hmm, it's somewhat know these days, that Japan leaders were already running diplomatic talks with the allies to end the war. Their only issue was that they were to be allowed to keep the emperor (wich in any case happened, as we know). Throwing the bomb(s) has never been a justifyable deed, since in a few weeks more of "mere" dimostrative conventional bombings (the Imperial Airforce and Navy had almost no fuel left by that time) and the intervention of URSS (quite known to allied leaders) would have quitted the war in two or three weeks.
I recently read an article about this same debate ona newspapaer, i'll go and try to find what else it was written there (and if it can be checked...)
-
I'm one of those who voted for "no building on the site".
I strongly agree with Adam that architecture should be progressive and looking forward, and if anything should be built there, i'd prefer it looked as Adam suggested.
Anyway: there have been a great loss in that place. I think it would be fit to place something like a "memorial garden", in remembrance of those who died, but also as a token of reflection over what has happened in worldwide relationships and balance.
-
No prob. chap, you're welcome asking!
:D -
Someone apparently forgot to mention that our primary task is hurling
at each other... *self
for being so sillySeriously: game designers, most of all, continuously pour a lot of ideas trying to depict Arda the best we can. A lot of research work within the professor's writings is needed of course (not only The Silmarillion, LotR, The Hobbit, but also Unfinished tales, Lost tales and, obviously the whole bunch of the History of Middle Earth volumes....). The second step involves checking the technical feasibility of the ideas proposed, and their general appeal (well, sometimes appeal takes the first place), then... ...on to another subject.
By the way: we have recently adopted a new organizational procedure: we discuss the general issues together, and divide the details' tasks among us. Work seems to flow more seamlessy in this way than it did before...
Hope this helps understanding our work, and no: your question cannot be considered spam at all...
-
I believe those creatures were Nazguls, yeah, and i suspect the towers were those east of the Grey Havens....
-
It seems like the original Boot disk has some problems, and maybe the copy was not perfect...
-
Well, the programming phase hasn't begin yet. We'll take into consideration this idea, but i don't know wether it will be implemented or not.
Thanks for the continuous flow of questions, suggestions and all....
-
Well, actually there are some non-heroic female figures in Tolkien's works.
Rosie Cotton, Ioreth and some more. The fact is thatthey played secondary roles, imho. I'm not saying that this is right or wrong, it's just Tolkien vision. We don't want to twist that, after all.
-
Well, Beren, your points are worth of praise, historically speaking. The problem is that we try to depict Tolkien's Arda from a purist point of view, was he right or wrong in what he created it doesn't matter much.
Nice point,anyway
-
Well, i read that Mayas and Incas had a fairly complex calendar and developed mathematics as well.
-
As said: i wish you an expecially happy birthday Shane!
With Elf candels, and musical boxes and miniature instruments from Dale!
-
Oups, sorry!
In any case, thanks, i had the oportunity of giving some more elements/thoughts 2 vents...
-
Having read the enlightments of Klaas and Rohirwine, think that it changed much. You're argument here turns out to be the same Unitedstaters use to deny any imperialism : we do not want territory. Yet, the fact is that, now, unless your are military strategic, territory per se is useless. You'll never want again to control territory. What you want to control, it's economy, and it is what we call "economical imperialism". Instead of controlling the land, you control its economy : it is as effective, yet, you don't have to pay to administer and you don't have to take care of the land. Indeed, you'll make things in order to have a friendly leader, in order to persue your economical imperialism. Klaas's example is clearly such thing : its common place in Latin America (especially what is now called the Banana Republics), nowadays. And, controlling economy doesn't involve any official political link : no colonialism with it.
Well, i never said Europe isn't pursuing imperialism. On the contrary i openly admitted we sent troops in Iraq to protect italian oil companies. What i said is that we are actually crippling third world economies with specific rules about what can and cannot be imported, wich kind of standards are required for something to be allowed in the EU and so on. If the purpose would be to grant EU citizens a better standard of products i would not be annoyed.The fact is that the EU parliament approves these laws only for the sake of some companies/economic interests.
I suppose that fair commercial relationships are those wich leave both parts satisfied and somewhat friendlier than before. Italy once had this kind of politics in the oil industry sector.
We had economically favourable agreements, but in change we granted 3d world countries formation for tecnicians and the industrial plants to continue activity after the deal was over.
The main character inspirator of this kind of practice has been Enrico Mattei, killed in an obscure flight accident in 1962 (some say he got the attention of the "seven sisters" or even the CIA, others point the finger on the mafia).
-
Mind out this is my opinion and nothing more: i don't think even an injury would make me feel allowed to kill someone to avoid it.
-
Well, my personal opinion is that feeling threatened isn't enough to let you be allowed to kill someone. Expecially since everyone has his sensibility and in any case everyone may put up it as an excuse: "Yes, i killed him, but only because i felt threatened" (*mild pun intended*). Who's going to decide if he's right or wrong? Go figure where this kind of situation can lead to....
-
Yes, i also thought it was a move to link those countries to EU before the US does (and who tells us that this hasn't already happened?
).In any case it's the old kind of political reasonement: fear of other countries taking too much influence.
I say: we should go on on our path and convince others by example, not by flattery. Europe has again taken the wrong direction...
Islamification of Europe
in Hall of Intellectuals
Posted
Frankly, if this is a provocation, it's a poor built one, Daniel.
Were are the facts needed to back such a claim?
Europe isn't growing because there are not many births? This is the only point you are correct on, imho. The rest is something that comes out from fear (imho, again). The same "reasoning" wich, back in the eighties, brought Kosovar serbs to think that they should have done something against Kosovar albanians before it was too late. We all have seen the outcome.
Muslims are coming in Europe to live? I welcome them, since it's quite natural that people try to get better job oportunities, higher standards of life (wich, incidentally, seems to be correlated to low birth rates), and better education opportunities for their children.
Most of all, muslim communities have always been in some areas of Europe (south eastern Europe, as istance), and it has never been a problem as long as someone did not slap in their face the fact that they were different and that they were feared for being different. Distrust and fear can only bring out fear, distrust and eventually hate.
Moreover, but i wish someone from France like Curufinwe could write his points of view on this, what the french state did, was not against muslims in particular, it has something to do with total separation of state from religion, and that law is applied to christians and jews and whatever else religious group as well, iirc. The fact that muslims appeared as the direct targets of that law comes out from the fact that there are many muslims in france, and that they tend to wear more evident signs of their religion. If, for istance, christians were used to bring around crosses 10 inches long around their necks, those would be equally banned.
I won't enter the debate if that law is right or wrong, i just point out the fact that it is not an anti-islam one.